MILAP CHAND JAIN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
(2.) THE offence under Section 308, IPC is amply proved against the appellant. It is proved from the evidence of Jamnadass that the accused inflicted a khife blow causing stab wound whereby omentum came out. This injury has been described as grievous and dangerous to life. The statement of Jamnadass gets corroboration from the medical evidence. Although, the knife has been recovered but due to dis -intergation of blood, the chemical report is of no avail to the prosecution. But the blood has been found on the clothes of the injured. The witnesses Mehar Singh and Jangir Singh have no doubt been declared hostile but on that basis the statement of the injured cannot be discarded. The length and width of the injury is not material but it is the depth which is material. The depth of the stab wound appears to be quite sufficient. The appellant was also earlier convicted for the offence under Section 326, IPC as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, considering the material on record, in my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the the appellant for the offence under Section 308, IPC. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be stated that the occurrence took place on a very trivial matter. According to the prosecution the accused appellant came drunk and was asked to go out but he wielded the knife and caused the injury on the person of Jamnadas, In the circumstances of the case, the sentence of four months and a fine of Rs. 2000/ - is imposed, in default of payment of fine he will further undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment. In case, the fine is deposited a sum of Rs. 1500/ -shall be paid to the injured Sant Jamnadass.;